Is Berlusconi's Political Career Over

It looks like the political career of former Italian Prime Minister and media tycoon Silvio Berlusconi might be at an end, after he was found guilty, and sentenced to a seven year jail term for having sex with an under age prostitute, and abusing his power when as Prime Minister. On top of this verdict, Berlusconi is also contesting two other cases of tax evasion and corruption charges.

The case has been a long drawn out affair, with Berlusconi and the girl denying that they had sex, even though she did attend many of Berlusconi’s so called ‘banga banga' parties at one of the tycoon’s villas. The verdict has been condemned by Berlusconi’s lawyer, who said after the trial, “"This is beyond reality," and "the judges even went beyond the prosecutors' request."  Although it seems if the reports are correct that with a long appeal process which is expected, he will probably never see the inside of a prison cell.

What gets me is how can a man like Berlusconi ever be elected as a nation's leader in the first place. He has been in and out of office for over 20 years, with many millions of Italians seeming to agree or just put up with the playboy antics of the billionaire media mogul. If any other Prime Minister or President in any other democratic nation behaved the way Berlusconi has, with all the extravagant parties and strippers, they would be condemned as immoral and unfit for office. But for some reason Berlusconi has got away with it for years, until now of course.

Although I do think that even with such a damaging verdict against the former Prime Minister, this may not be the last time we see him influencing Italian politics. This is not the first time that he has been found guilty of various crimes, and he seems to find his way past judicial rulings, through either appealing or using his status to escape prison time, and then reappear on the political stage.    

I do believe his return would be unwise.

Should there be a leadership change in the Australian Labor Government?

As the federal election in Australia gets closer, so does the speculation of a leadership change in the Labor government. Ever since the 2010 election, the media and the Liberal party has been on a long campaign of speculating that any moment now, Prime Minister Julia Gillard will be removed as leader of the Labor party and government to be replaced by previous Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. On a couple of occasions the reports have been true with Rudd challenging Gillard in  caucus meetings, but in both cases failed to regain the leadership, most recently been in March this year.

“There are no circumstances under which I will return to the leadership of the Australian Labor Party in the future.” - Kevin Rudd on Sunrise

As the federal parliament sits for the last few weeks before the September election, the media and other sources are jumping over hoops to declare that Gillard will be ousted as Prime Minister, although supporters of both Gillard and Rudd have been frantic at playing down any leadership challenge. On a morning show this morning  Kevin Rudd said “there are no circumstances under which I will return to the leadership of the Australian Labor Party in the future.” Hopefully this is an indication that there will be no challenge next week, as been predicted by the media.

I agree with Labor backbencher Gary Gray’s assessment of the situation, that Rudd and his supporters should contest the leadership or “shut up.” This whole talk and rumors are getting a little tiresome to me and I suspect to the rest of Australia. All that I want is a party to govern without waking up one morning with the news of a new Prime Minister, or constant reports that there might be a leadership challenge.

The last think that the embattled Labor government needs is a disruptive leadership change, just a few months before an election. I think that Gillard is performing as good of a job as Kevin Rudd could do if he was able to take over as leader, which is a little late now.

If the polls are correct, opposition leader Tony Abbott and his Liberal party are predicted to win the September election and any leadership change this close to the ballet would likely not affect the outcome. So perhaps, before Rudd and his supporters try going for the top job they should sit back and consider that any action will probably not reinstate the Labor as the governing party. The only way of a victory for the government is for all party members to concentrate on supporting Gillard as Prime Minister and coming up with sound policy, demonstrating that they can still offer a better future for Australia, rather then a government led by Tony Abbott. 

Iran Turning To A More Transparent Nuclear Plan

If the words of Hassan Rouhani, the newly elected Iranian President are true, the nuclear standoff between Iran and the international community looks to be turning a corner. Over the weekend, Rouhani announced at a post election press conference, that Iran needs to be more transparent with its nuclear program.  

Rouhani is seen as a moderate leader than his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who became a thorn to the international community’s actions to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions. While Rouhani stated that Iran will come to the negotiation table with the international community to solve the nuclear issue, he also said that Iran will not stop uranium enrichment, as the program is within the rules of the international framework.    

This re-engagement by President Rouhani is welcoming, that’s if the words will translate into actions. Although the international community cannot relax sanction or pressure on Iran just yet, until there are concrete efforts by the new government to convince that their nuclear program is for peaceful means only. I think to progress the stated willingness by President Rouhani, is for the 5+1 group (UNSC permanent five and Germany), to openly welcome a turning point in the relationship between Iran and the international community. 

The only resolution I can see of this issue, is not through military action (which has been the argument of Israel) but for peaceful negotiations, which will have to include the reality that Iran is entitled to a peaceful nuclear program. On Iran’s part, the stated transparency will hopefully consist of allowing International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to monitor the program. I do think this crisis can be resolved with more open dialogue from both Iran and the international community. And let’s hope for the people of Iran and the rest of the world, that this stand-off can be resolved soon, as we do not want another unnecessary conflict in an already volatile region.   

North Korea open for talks

Early last month I wrote a post on the escalating crisis on the Korean Peninsula,where North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un was destabilizing regional peace and security with rhetorical threats of invasion of the South and destruction of the United States presence in Asia. For more than a month, he was carrying out these threats by isolating the Communist regime further from the international community, by cutting communication links with the South and just being all out antagonistic towards the US and the rest of the world.

As I argued in my last post concerning the most recent crisis, these actions by the North Koreans is just another one in the line of many that have happened over the last few decades. Every time the Communist regime feels under pressure or scrutiny from the outside world, the leaders looked to release their own personal tension by defying calls for nuclear disarmament with testing of its nuclear capabilities. I cannot even count with all my fingers, how many times North Korea has gone down this path, with the status quo still intact.

So it seems my predictions were correct in the past few months. North Korea seems to be crumbling on the inside, as by one minute they are antagonizing the US and threatening the South, and the next minute, wanting to make peace. Small dog syndrome for attracting attention perhaps?  

Last week, the North Koreans, indicated that they are willing to reopen the Kaesong industrial park and reconnect communication lines with the South. To me, this indicates that the Communist regime and its leaders are in a desperate situation. On the one hand they feel threatened by the outside world and its capitalist ideology, but on the other their continuing self isolation is going to bring further hardship to its people, who surely are not going to sit back now and let the regime destroy their future. 

The crisis in Syria is slowly becoming a regional conflict

A couple of months ago I wrote a post on the deteriorating civil war that has been taking place in Syria for almost two years. I discussed the lack of action by the international community in bringing in a resolution to the conflict and since then, the situation in  Syria and the region in general have not been getting any better, and the issue of the many differences between all sides in the conflict have not being resolved.
Unfortunately in the last few months since my last post on this issue, there has been more civilian deaths (over 80, 000) and President Assad tightening his grip on power.

In the last few weeks the conflict has further escalated internally with suspicion that the Assad regime has been using chemical weapons against his own people, although this has not been confirmed. The US and the UK intelligence agencies have stated that there is unconfirmed evidence that civilians have been attacked using nerve gas, but this has not led to further action by either country to remove Assad. Externally, the surrounding regions are slowly being sucked into the conflict, either on purpose or because they share a common border with Syria. On 11th of May for example, Turkey suffered a spate of bomb attacks in a town close to the border with Syria, for which the Turkish authorities blamed on the Assad regime. Also, only in the last days, Israeli defence forces have retaliated to gunfire from Syrian Army units in the Golan Heights. This incident comes in conjunction with Israeli air strikes on a  convoy, suspected of sending weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

From these events over the last few months, as the conflict in Syria gets worse, peace does not seem a likely outcome any moment soon. The international community keeps arguing that their hands are tied due to differences in how to solve the problems, and most nations are unwilling to risk a military intervention at this point.

The world needs to realise that the conflict is not just an internal affair any more, as the last few weeks have shown, Turkey, Israel and other countries in the region have been caught up in the politics of the civil war, and have at this stage refrained from escalating the situation, although, this could change if they are further provoked by the Assad regime and could turn into a regional war, if not resolved soon.  

Will the U.S Secretary of State Restart the Middle East Peace Process?

(Image source: WikiCommons | Credit to: US Department of State)
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry holds a meeting with the Arab League delegation, led by Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr Al-Thani, at the Blair House in Washington, D.C., on April 29, 2013.

The United States Secretary of State, John Kerry has held a meeting this week with Arab League members, to discuss the restarting of the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. 

Ever since the Israeli nation was formed in 1948, there has been on and off conflict between the Jewish state and the people of Palestine, leading to a number of major wars which have dragged other Arab nations into the dispute. Much of the issues concerning the conflict are on matters of religious differences, as Israel is Jewish and the Palestinians are Muslim. Also, land and natural resources have played a major part in fueling the distrust of both sides. Israel are unwilling to give up land that was taken away from the Palestinians in the 1967 war, arguing security concerns, and elements within the power circles of the Palestinian  community, want all of the Jewish lands returned to the Muslim peoples.  

The international communities, and more specifically the U.S, have over the last few decades been the third wheel in the process to bring peace to the unstable region. The last major attempt to bring long lasting peace was back in the late 1990’s, under the Oslo Accord, when President Bill Clinton almost negotiated an agreeable road map between the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) chairman  Yasar Arafat and the then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, however, many of the Accords principles, including ‘two state’ solution have not full progressed. Although, a Palestinian Authority (PA) was formed to allow the Palestinians limited self governance, many of the issues discussed in the Accords are still to be fully implemented.

Since the Oslo Accords no major attempts to bring an agreed solution to the conflict have aspired, as the U.S have concentrated their resources fighting the decade long ‘war on terror,’ and both Israel and the Palestinians have failed to overcome many domestic issues, which have stalled the peace process.

The attempt this week by John Kerry to meet with foreign ministers from Arab nations in the region, seems to me, emphasises the importance that these Arab states have in bringing both Israel and especially the divided Palestinians to restart concrete negotiations on a workable solution. I think this is a good first step by the new US Secretary of State to consult with regional leaders, rather than going straight to the Palestinians or Israelis. What needs to happen after this weeks meeting, is for Arab states to work in partnership with the US on bring both Hamas and Fatah to agree on working together to negotiate peace. If this situation can aspire, where both Hamas and Fatah can share governance over Gaza and the West Bank, Israel is more likely going to agree to negotiate a solution for peace. 

Should International Sanctions on Burma be lifted?

Image source: WikiCommons Credit to: Htoo Tay Zar

On Monday the European Union (EU) lifted its economic sanctions on Burma (Myanmar), although an arms embargo is still in place. This act comes inline with other international institutions and states that have over the last year or so lifted their own sanctions on Burma. For instance, last year the United States, suspended some sanctions and relaxed trade restrictions between both countries. Much of these sanctions have been in place for a number of decades, ever since Burma has been under military rule. During this time, the Burmese people suffered under the sanctions, which prevented any direct foreign investment and trade with the international community, and slowed economic development.

Since 2011, the military junta has been on a campaign of economic, political and social reforms, culminating in the release of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who had been under house arrest for almost 19 years. On top of Suu Kyi’s release, the military generals progressed with a new constitution, allowing for the first time, opposition groups to hold seats in parliament. Even though, the military still hold over half the seats and govern over state affairs, Aung San Suu  Kyi  has become a member of parliament and has a voice in national decision making.

I agree with the lifting of some of the economic sanctions by the international community, but I am a little sceptical of the future intentions of the military junta in Burma. Foreign placed sanctions on countries over a long period, such as the one in Burma, has some short term effects to pressuring regimes to reform and tackle issues of human rights, but in the long term, the sanctions can bring further misery on the people, not the authorities which the sanctions target. On my second point, the Burmese government have began showing signs that they will begin a process of reform, but I do think that the international community needs to be vigilant in how much leeway to give to  the Burmese government in regards to carrying out the planned reforms. Before more international institutions or countries start lifting sanctions on Burma, further reforms, especially in regards to human rights abuses needs to be actively addressed.